Egyptian Fractions
The Ahmes papyrus is one of the very oldest extant mathematical
documents. It was written around 3800 years ago. As I mentioned
recently, a large part of it is a table of the values of fractions of
the form 2/n for odd integers n. The Egyptians, at
least at that time, did not have a generalized fraction notation.
They would write fractions of the form 1/n, and they could
write sums of these. But convention dictated that they could not use
the same unit fraction more than once. So to express 3/5 they would
have needed to write something like 1/2 + 1/10, which from now on I
will abbreviate as [2, 10]. (They also had a special notation for
2/3, but I will ignore that for a while.) Expressing arbitrary
fractions in this form can be done, but it is non-trivial.

A simple algorithm for calculating this so-called "Egyptian fraction
representation" is the greedy algorithm: To represent
n/d, find the largest unit fraction 1/a that is
less than n/d. Calculate a representation for
n/d - 1/a, and append 1/a. This
always works, but it doesn't always work well. For example, let's use
the greedy algorithm to find a representation for 2/9. The largest
unit fraction less than 2/9 is 1/5, and 2/9 - 1/5 = 1/45, so we get
2/9 = 1/5 + 1/45 = [5, 45]. But it also happens that 2/9 = [6, 18],
which is much more convenient to calculate with because the numbers
are smaller. Similarly, for 19/20 the greedy algorithm produces 19/20
= [2] + 9/20 = [2, 3] + 7/60 = [2, 3, 9, 180]. But even
7/60 can be more simply written than as [9, 180]; it's also [10, 60], [12, 30], and, best of all, [15, 20].

So similarly, for 3/7 this time, the greedy methods gives us
3/7 = 1/3 + 2/21, and that 2/21 can be expanded by the greedy method
as [11, 231], so 3/7 = [3, 11, 231].
But even 2/21 has better expansions: it's also [12, 84], [14, 42],
and, best of all, [15, 35], so 3/7 = [3, 15, 35]. But better than all
of these is 3/7 = [4, 7, 28], which is optimal.

Anyway, while I was tinkering with all this, I got an answer to a
question I had been wondering about for years, which is: why did Ahmes
come up with a table of representations of fractions of the form
2/n, rather than the representations of all possible quotients?
Was there a table somewhere else, now lost, of representations of
fractions of the form 3/n?

To calculate 6/7, you first calculate 3/7, which is [4, 7, 28].
Then you double 3/7, and get 6/7 = 1/2 + 2/7 + 1/14. Now you look
up 2/7 in the table and get 2/7 = [4, 28], so 6/7 = [2, 4, 14, 28]. Whether this is optimal or not is open to argument.
It's longer than [2, 3, 42], but on the other hand the
denominators are smaller.

Anyway, the table of 2/n is all you need to produce Egyptian
representations of arbitrary rational numbers. The algorithm in
general is:

To sum up two Egyptian fractions, just concatenate their
representations. There may now be unit fractions that appear twice,
which is illegal.
If a pair of such fractions have an even denominator, they can be
eliminated using the rule that 1/2n + 1/2n =
1/n. Otherwise, the denominator is odd, and you can look the
numbers up in the 2/n table and replace the matched pair with
the result from the table lookup. Repeat until no pairs remain.

To double an Egyptian fraction, add it to itself as per the
previous.

To calculate a/b, when a = 2k, first
calculate k/b and then double it as per the previous.

To calculate a/b when a is odd, first
calculate (a-1)/b as per the previous; then add 1/b.

So let's calculate the Egyptian fraction representation of 19/20 by
this method:

19/20 = 18/20 + 1/20

19/20 = 9/10 + 1/20

9/10 = 8/10 + 1/10

9/10 = 4/5 + 1/10

4/5 = 2/5 + 2/5

2/5 = [3, 15] (from the table)

4/5 = [3, 3, 15, 15]

4/5 = 2/3 + 2/15

2/3 = [2, 6] (from the table)

2/15 = [12, 20] (from the table)

4/5 = [2, 6, 12, 20]

9/10 = [2, 6, 10, 12, 20]

19/20 = [2, 6, 10, 12, 20, 20]

19/20 = [2, 6, 10, 10, 12]

19/20 = [2, 5, 6, 12]

(The Egyptians would have been happy with 2/3 in the middle step
there, and would have ended up with 19/20 = 2/3 + [5, 12].) Our final
result is suboptimal; to fix it, we need to notice that [6, 12] = [4]
and get 19/20 = [2, 4, 5]. But even without this, the final result is
pretty good, and required no understanding or tricky reasoning; just a
lot of grinding.

An alternative algorithm is to expand the numerator as a sum of powers
of 2, which the Egyptians certainly knew how to do. For 19/20 this
gives us 19/20 = 16/20 + 2/20 + 1/20 = 4/5 + [10, 20]. Now we need
to figure out 4/5, which we do as above, getting 4/5 = [2, 6, 12, 20], or 4/5 = 2/3 + [12, 20] if we are Egyptian, or 4/5 =
[2, 4, 20] if we are clever. Supposing we are neither, we have
19/20
= [2, 6, 12, 20, 10, 20]
= [2, 6, 12, 10, 10]
= [2, 6, 12, 5]
as before.

(It is not clear to me, by the way, that either of these algorithms is
guaranteed to terminate. I need to think about it some more.)

Getting the table of good-quality representations of 2/n is not
trivial, and requires searching, number theory, and some trial and
error. It's not at all clear that 2/105 = [90, 126].

Once you have the table of 2/n, however, you can grind
out the answer to any division problem. This might be time-consuming,
but it's nevertheless trivial. So Ahmes needed a table of 2/n,
but once he had it, he didn't need any other tables.